Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 Protects the Right to Post Negative Reviews
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: June 26, 2015
Key Contacts
Back
A new bill, the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, is currently pending in Congress which would prohibit the use of “non-disparagement” clauses in consumer contracts.
The legislation is intended to prohibit companies from penalizing customers who write negative online reviews.
As we have previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Business Law News Blog, attempts to control online reviews are largely unsuccessful and can often lead to both reputational harm and legal liability. In 2013, the Attorney General of New York penalized nineteen companies who engaged in “astroturfing,” defined as “[t]he practice of preparing or disseminating a false or deceptive review that a reasonable consumer would believe to be a neutral, third-party review.”
In a recent federal enforcement action, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged a California shipping company with deceptive advertising after the company failed to disclose that it gave customers a $50 discount as long as they agreed to review AmeriFreight’s services. According to the FTC, AmeriFreight ran afoul of the agency’s requirement that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.
Origins and support of the bill
The Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 (available here) was introduced by four California lawmakers, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), and Brad Sherman, (D-Calif.), and largely tracks legislation approved by that state in 2014. It would void any contract clause that “prohibits or restricts the ability of a person who is a party to the form contract to engage in a covered communication,” or which “imposes a penalty or fee” against that person.
As an added measure, the proposed federal statute also prohibits contract clauses that purport to establish any intellectual property rights over the customer’s lawful communications. In several cases, companies have attempted to use their consumer contracts to dispel criticism by asserting a copyright interest in online reviews. Businesses that violate either provision of the Consumer Review Freedom Act could face fines of up to $16,000 per day.
Attempts to pass similar legislation have been unsuccessful. However, the current bill has bi-partisan support, as well the backing of Rep. Issa, who chairs the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We will continue to track the status of the bill and provide updates as they become available.
In the meantime, businesses may still want to reconsider the use of non-disparagement clauses or assignment of copyright interest to control online reviews. Even in the absence of state or federal laws restricting their use, courts have been reluctant to enforce them. In addition, the negative publicity that accompanies such as action generally outweighs any potential monetary recovery.
- Practices: Corporate Transactions & Business
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 Protects the Right to Post Negative Reviews
Author: Robert E. Levy
A new bill, the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, is currently pending in Congress which would prohibit the use of “non-disparagement” clauses in consumer contracts.
The legislation is intended to prohibit companies from penalizing customers who write negative online reviews.
As we have previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Business Law News Blog, attempts to control online reviews are largely unsuccessful and can often lead to both reputational harm and legal liability. In 2013, the Attorney General of New York penalized nineteen companies who engaged in “astroturfing,” defined as “[t]he practice of preparing or disseminating a false or deceptive review that a reasonable consumer would believe to be a neutral, third-party review.”
In a recent federal enforcement action, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged a California shipping company with deceptive advertising after the company failed to disclose that it gave customers a $50 discount as long as they agreed to review AmeriFreight’s services. According to the FTC, AmeriFreight ran afoul of the agency’s requirement that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.
Origins and support of the bill
The Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 (available here) was introduced by four California lawmakers, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), and Brad Sherman, (D-Calif.), and largely tracks legislation approved by that state in 2014. It would void any contract clause that “prohibits or restricts the ability of a person who is a party to the form contract to engage in a covered communication,” or which “imposes a penalty or fee” against that person.
As an added measure, the proposed federal statute also prohibits contract clauses that purport to establish any intellectual property rights over the customer’s lawful communications. In several cases, companies have attempted to use their consumer contracts to dispel criticism by asserting a copyright interest in online reviews. Businesses that violate either provision of the Consumer Review Freedom Act could face fines of up to $16,000 per day.
Attempts to pass similar legislation have been unsuccessful. However, the current bill has bi-partisan support, as well the backing of Rep. Issa, who chairs the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We will continue to track the status of the bill and provide updates as they become available.
In the meantime, businesses may still want to reconsider the use of non-disparagement clauses or assignment of copyright interest to control online reviews. Even in the absence of state or federal laws restricting their use, courts have been reluctant to enforce them. In addition, the negative publicity that accompanies such as action generally outweighs any potential monetary recovery.